It's clear that some pro-life politicians need to learn better how to talk about this subject. So let's take a look at it and see what lessons there are . . .

"Legitimate Rape"???

First, I know nothing about either Akin or Mourdock except what has been reported about their comments on abortion and rape, so I am not endoring them or their opponents. I am simply trying to look at the lessons that can be learned for the benefit of pro-life politicians--and pro-lifers--in general.

Reportedly, when asked if women who became pregnant as the result of a rape, Todd Akin replied:

Well you know, people always want to try to make that as one of those things, well how do you, how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question. First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.

Akin's first problem--or at least the first huge problem--is that he used the phrase "legitimate rape." This appeared to suggest that there is such a thing as legitimate rape, which is morally repugnant.

Of course, a moment's reflection would lead one to realize what he actually meant. By "legitimate rape" he presumably meant actual rape--forcing sex on an unwilling participant.

A contrast to this, presumably, would be cases that are sometimes classified as "statutory rape," in which the statutes of the local criminal code classify an act as rape because one of the parties is not old enough to legally consent to the act. In fact, both of the parties may be willing participants (or one may not be), but in any event one party is deemed unable to legally consent by reason of age.

Akin may also have had in mind situations in which a woman is ambiguous about consent or where she later decides to repudiate her involvement in the act.

All of this leads to Akin's second huge problem: Political opponents and people coming from a pro-abortion perspective will not go through the mental exercise of trying to figure all this out. They will simply attack.

If they do acknowledge that he wasn't actually asserting that some forms of rape are morally legitimate then they will paint him as dismissing what happens to women in other situations (i.e., that statutory rape, ambiguous consent, or repudiated consent "don't matter")--or even just accusing rape victims of lying.

Then there is the matter that Akin was trying to assert, which is that a woman's body has certain in-built defenses such that, if she is forcibly compelled to have sex, make it unlikely she will have a baby.

Although some pro-life leaders have asserted that this is true, others have challenged the claim.

This leads to Akin's third huge problem: By citing a medically disputed claim he gets the issue off the need to protect children conceived of rape and onto the merits of the claim, with other pro-lifers taking a contrary position.

This allows the enemies of life to dismiss pro-lifers (including Akin) as scientific illiterates who are so driven by ideology that they make preposterous claims repudiated by others of their own camp.

"God Intended"???

Reportedly, when asked about his position on abortion during a debate, Richard Mourdock replied in part:

I know there are some who disagree and I respect their point of view, but I believe that life begins at conception. The only exception I have to have an abortion is in that case of the life of the mother. I just struggled with it myself for a long time but I came to realize: Life is that gift from God that I think even if life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.

If you sit back and read his statement carefully, Mourdock is not saying that God intended the rape to happen but that God intended the life to resulted from the rape to happen.

Mourdock's first huge problem is that most people won't sit back and read his claim carefully.

Unless you're a pro-lifer who is taking a careful, cautious, and consciously fair-minded approach to things, you're likely to hear him as saying that God intended the rape.

Mourdock's second huge problem is that, even if you do realize that he's talking about God intending the life rather than the rape, the life would not have happened unless it was for the rape.

It's difficult for a typical voter to see how God could have intended the life without intending the rape that brought it about, so again it looks like he's saying that God intended the rape.

I'm not saying that there aren't nuanced ways of parsing these issues, but the point is this: How God's providence relates to human free will, particularly when humans use their free will to commit evil acts, some of which have good consequences (like new life) is a notoriously thorny issue that has been debated for centuries.

Which leds to Mourdock's third huge problem: The relationship between providence, free will, and evil is unlikely to be sorted out in a modern political debate.

I mean, if you're a politician you're lucky if you get more than a short soundbite through the filter of the Mainstream Media. Don't expect complicated, nuanced theological positions to get through it!

A Common Mistake

Both Akin and Mourdock committed a common mistake in their remarks, which was this: Don't say more than you need to!

Akin did not need to go into the question of whether women who have been forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse are more or less likely to have a baby.

At best, that's a secondary (or tertiary) issue.

Mourdock, if asked about his position on abortion, would not need to go into the case of rape at all.

And, if asked about rape, he would not need to go into the thorny question of how divine providence, free will, and evil relate to each other.

Both of these politicians, thus, opened themselves to massive criticism by committing a common error: Saying more than what they needed to in order to address the question.

What Pro-Life Politicians Need to Say

When called upon to address the subject of abortion and rape (which apparently Mourdock was not), pro-life politicians need to say three things:

"Rape is a horrible crime."

"We should not punish a child for the crime of his or her father."

"And."

These three seem, to me, to constitute the core of what any pro-life politician needs to say about abortion and rape.

"Rape is a horrible crime"

The first of them acknowledges a fact that all moral people recognize regarding rape.

If you don't explicitly acknowledge the objective horror of rape, how can anything else you say on the subject be credible?

This horror is so powerful that if you try to qualify it (e.g., by referring to "legitimate rape") that you kill your credibility and allow yourself to be painted as an insensitive monster.

So don't qualify it.

Tell the truth, and then let the truth stand!

"We should not punish a child for the crime of his or her father"

This is the truth that is a baby should not be killed because his father--or any other of his ancestors, however far back--committed a crime.

So tell this truth, too.

Then let it stand!

"And"

How people receive the truths we present depends on how we relate them to each other.

If you say, "X is true, but Y is true" then you put two truths in opposition to each other.

It can even appear that you consider Y to be a more important truth than X--or that X doesn't even matter.

That's why, under the pressures of politics, it's important to acknowledge both the horror of rape and the life of the child.

In dealing with these two truths, it's important to recognize them both, without seeming to dismiss one by using "but" instead of "and."

Anything Else?

It's understandable that, in some situations, politicians would feel called upon to go beyond the three points we have just named.

A time-worn answer is to stick to your pre-prepared talking points, anyway, and it's hard to argue with that.

Certainly politicians should not stray very far from the core points of the issue, as the trouble Akin and Mourdock got into illustrates.

In situations where it is absolutely necessary to go further, though, I suggest this: Talking about people who would have been or could have been killed if modern laws regarding abortion and rape were in place.

Do those who favor killing a child because of her father's crime think that Ethel Waters could or should have been killed?

Putting faces to the problem will help make the problem concrete in the voter's minds. It will help they realize the human cost of the policy and help prevent people from thinking in terms of impersonal "fetuses" and other abstractions ("blobs of tissue") that the abortion industry has used to mislead the American people.

Comments

No one’s going to make any headway on this until the needs of the mother are considered. 31 states still allow rapists to sue for parental rights. If women wish to keep or put their babies up for adoption, they have to contend with their rapist to do so. A pregnant woman can be fired for her condition. Many have no insurance or prenatal care. Republicans are the last to enact the kind of support for mothers and children that will lead to fewer abortions.

Posted by Bill S on Sunday, Nov 11, 2012 3:20 PM (EST):

“Many have chosen to carry these innocent babies to term and given them up for adoption. God bless them.

A rape victim should take a morning after pill. At worst, she should have an abortion as soon as she knows she is pregnant. To think there will ever be a law against that is pure insanity.

Posted by Ali Shaw on Wednesday, Nov 7, 2012 12:47 PM (EST):

In a civilized society, crime victims are not allowed to take the law into their own hands and kill the criminals who victimized them. Therefore it makes no sense that they be allowed to kill an innocent person in response to the crime. Women deserve more credit on this issue. Many have chosen to carry these innocent babies to term and given them up for adoption. God bless them.

Posted by J. H. M. Ortiz on Saturday, Nov 3, 2012 5:05 PM (EST):

Jimmy Akin’s remarks here on “but” versus “and” are semantically interesting. Because logically, “but” as a “coordinating conjunction” (as distinct from a “subordinating” conjunction such as “although”), gives equal weight to both assertions, regardless of which assertion comes before and which one after the “but”. Yet psychologically, Jimmy Akin is right: the order of the assertions linked by the “but” is important.
Something I remember Pope Paul VI having written and/or said bears this out. Urging prayer, he cited a comment objecting, “Pope, you’re always urging us to pray; it’s an excellent thing, but it’s always the same thing.” The Pope replied, “Let’s turn that around: it’s always the same thing, but it is an excellent thing.”

Posted by cthlc12345 on Tuesday, Oct 30, 2012 5:15 PM (EST):

I think it’s important to emphasize that we CAN win the hearts and minds of people with science, logic, and morality if we first concentrate on the 99% of abortions that were NOT made necessary because of rape.

Posted by Kathleen on Tuesday, Oct 30, 2012 11:04 AM (EST):

Howard ,
Voting for Mr Romney is not selling out to the devil. Come on, please.Seriously.He’s a very decent man.He’s not a Catholic & does not hold all the same convictions we do, but compare that to Pres. Obama’s stand on abortion.It’s a no brainer to me.
What Satan might like devout Catholics to do, is to sit on our hands & vote for no one on election day.That might ensure the futher darkening of our nation’s future & shrinking of religious liberties.Euthanasia’s on the ballot in Massachusetts this year & will be heading to each state eventually.Our nation’s future is in serious peril, I think.
Please vote for Romney/Ryan on Nov. 6th.

Posted by VIRGINIA LINSENMEYER on Monday, Oct 29, 2012 8:09 PM (EST):

The parsing is unbelievable. All you need is to say there is a liberal anywhere in the vicinity and you can flip the words like hotcakes and turn verbal somersaults and what any ultraconservative concludes can be made acceptable.
So Sorry. He meant what he said. He said that God found the act of rape acceptable because it would produce an innocent child. So then rape by extension is also innocent and God given. Imagine a horrific violent crime is made OKk because a baby is the result.
Unreal!

Posted by Howard on Monday, Oct 29, 2012 8:01 PM (EST):

Kathleen, your answer makes no sense. Q. “How much is it worth to win an election?” A. “The future of our nation, I think.” So, it is worth the future of our nation to win this election? That price is too steep. But of course, you don’t mean that the future of the nation is the PRICE, but rather WHY YOU WANT IT. Now the PRICE in the story, which you even quote, is to adore the Devil. That price is *much* too steep—even for “the future of our nation”.

Posted by Lea S. on Monday, Oct 29, 2012 10:24 AM (EST):

Wow, the discussion here was really going beautifully. Then trolls showed up and spoiled everything. Naturally. Now it shall all disintegrate into nonsense, unless we have the willpower not to feed them.

Posted by Unborn Human Rights on Monday, Oct 29, 2012 10:20 AM (EST):

I agree! Great info on how we all should approach these issues when talking to pro-abortion people and all people in general. Keep on point and let the truth stand!

Posted by Kathleen on Monday, Oct 29, 2012 8:19 AM (EST):

Posted by Howard on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 3:14 PM (EST):“And the devil led him into a high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time; And he said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them. If thou therefore wilt adore before me, all shall be thine.” How much is it worth to win an election?”
********************
The future of our nation, I think.

Posted by Mark Taylor on Sunday, Oct 28, 2012 7:38 PM (EST):

Gabriel, there is such a thing as pack rape. If a women gets raped by more than one man, they can’t all be expected to marry her.

Posted by True Democrat on Sunday, Oct 28, 2012 1:14 PM (EST):

Pro-life politicians need to shut-up, that’s what. They really don’t think rape is such a bad experience for a woman. How else can they “let slip” phrases like “legitimate rape” and “pregnancy by rape is God’s will” and honestly think voters won’t be outraged. As “politicians” they should know what “sound bites” they should avoid.
.
Trying to “explain” their comments will only alienate people from religion and move people to the “none” category of religious polls.

Posted by dch on Sunday, Oct 28, 2012 10:14 AM (EST):

“I think Mourdock meant to say that God intended the ‘conception’ - not the rape but perhaps I misunderstood.”

Even worse, your god imposes his will without compassion. Why does he not STOP the rapist? After all the dude can move galaxies and start up stars. But he cannot step in know and then to cripple a rapist attacking an innocent female.

And you wonder why non-religious people find guys like Akin to be complete morons, they are old white men inflicting their warped theology on us all - HE IS IN CONGRESS. He is YOUR moron. Live with it.

Posted by Maria on Sunday, Oct 28, 2012 2:50 AM (EST):

Gabriel is probably a pro-choice troll. Or just insane.

Posted by cowalker on Sunday, Oct 28, 2012 2:12 AM (EST):

Posted by GABRIEL on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 11:16 PM (EST):
“I say we take Gods laws and sho[v]e it down the throats of mankind w[h]ether they like them or not.

“God made laws. Enforce them. Plain and simple.”

Gabriel, philosophically you’d fit right in with the fundamentalist Muslims who stone adulterers and behead infidels. But how would you settle the matter of which set of laws are really God’s? Theological debate judged by impartial panels of Catholics and Muslims?

Posted by GABRIEL on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 11:16 PM (EST):

@enness:

I don`t rape, so I`m not part of the problem.

Deuteronomical laws pertain to rape victims. And it goes a little something like this:

If a man is caught raping a woman, he shall either pay her husband, or if she is unmarried, he shall be required to marry her, and cannot divorce her.

Simple as that. No abortions, no nothing.
I don`t give a Flying E about human laws.

And besides, I find this entire discussion ridiculous.

Everyone knows the truth anyway, and all who are “pro-choice” meaning pro-death are just making up excuses.

So they can fornicate and then kill their kids, to keep fornicating even more.

That`s all there is to it.
Thats ALL there is to it.

We are not partaking in a popularity contest here on earth, and so neither should the message be sugarcoated to tickle in the ears of “moderns”.

I say we take Gods laws and showe it down the throats of mankind wether they like them or not.

God made laws. Enforce them. Plain and simple.

Adios.

Posted by enness on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 10:32 PM (EST):

cowalker, from what I recall it was Bush II who not only presided over the partial-birth abortion ban, but also signed the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act and prohibited federal funding for ESCR (I used to have a longer list, that is just off the top of my head). I cannot see any of that happening under this administration - give me a pro-life Democrat over what we’ve got any day of the week!
-
GABRIEL: Please stop with the “real rape” (as opposed to fake rape?) nonsense. If you’re not part of the solution you’re part of the problem.

Posted by GABRIEL on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 8:08 PM (EST):

A real rape is a crime.
An abortion is a premeditated murder in the 1. degree.

If you want to kill your kid through abortion, you should wait until he has turned 18 and is able to give his informed consent to your plans.

Otherwise, leave the kid in peace.
And that is all there is to said abou the matter.

Posted by Mark Taylor on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 6:02 PM (EST):

I meant Ethel Waters, of course. My bad.

Posted by cowalker on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 5:31 PM (EST):

Posted by TeaPot562 on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 4:35 PM (EST):
“For those babies born in foreign countries during the Bush I and Bush II years, the “Mexico City policy” definitely made a difference.”

Yes indeed. Republican presidents are more than willing to limit the abortion rights of women who can’t vote against them. They sure have the backs of the pro-lifers.

It’s pretty pathetic how faithful pro-lifers are to Republican politicians, just because they’re willing to pay a little lip service to their cause. Even that goes away for the most part after the primaries. Pro-lifers sell themselves very cheap.

Posted by TeaPot562 on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 4:35 PM (EST):

Some seem to feel that whether a Democrat or Republican is in the White House makes no difference on the incidence of abortion. During Reagan’s second term, a decision was made on funneling US govt funds to abortion providers in foreign lands. The “Mexico City policy” directed that NO US Federal Funds would be paid to abortion providers in foreign lands.
When W. Clinton was elected, he cancelled the Mexico City policy, and US financing (under the color of foreign aid) resumed. When George W. Bush was elected, he reinstated the Mexico City policy. When B. Obama was elected, he cancelled the Mexico City policy.
Each of the decisions above was made by Executive Order. A President can issue an executive order without the difficult task of cobbling together a majority of the House of Representatives AND a filibuster-proof majority of the Senate to enact a bill getting the US govt. completely out of the abortion business.
For those babies born in foreign countries during the Bush I and Bush II years, the “Mexico City policy” definitely made a difference.
TeaPot562

Posted by Suzana on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 2:11 PM (EST):

Stephanie Gray of the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform addresses this matter very well.

She writes, “Women in crisis need help but abortion isn’t the solution. Abortion doesn’t unrape the rape victim. So if we truly want to help women, we need to eliminate a woman’s crisis, not exterminate a woman’s child.”

Posted by MRD on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 10:10 AM (EST):

If we wish to merely say how a politician ( or any pro-lifer) should discuss this issue, its simple. When asked about this I simple say the following which usually my interlocutor finds persuasive. “Look I think an unborn child is a human being, and there can never be a “good” reason to kill an innocent human being, but lets step beyond this for a moment. Any laws against abortion require a broad consensus withing the community, police must be willing to investigate and arrest, prosecutors prosecute and juries convict. Currently that kind of broad consensus against abortion in the case of rape does not exist. What does exist is a very broad consensus that abortion should be more limited than the industrial scale destruction of unborn children for any reason at any stage of pregnancy. This indeed is the kind of thing that only the most rigid abortion fantatic can approve of. No country in the European union ( not known for its excessive religiosity) has this kind of abortion regime. I would suggest that we agree to be at least as protective of unborn life as our friends in socialist Spain, and begin to move in a more rational direction..

This kind of approach does not concede in principal that abortion is intrinsically wrong always. It does recognize we are no were near a situation in which all unborn children are welcomed and protected in law. Such a situation would in fact require a huge change in our culture. Such a change will happen gradually, slavery was removed over a time period of 50 years and was aided by a civil war with enormous casualties. The abortionist forces are much more clever than pro-lifers, what they want is the current unlimited abortion regime. They wish to focus the argument on the ugly and difficult situation of rape. Of course our strategy should be the reverse, we wish to focus the situation on the remaining 99% of the abortions that the entire country sees as problematic. Although its obvious that abortion in the case of rape is just as wrong as abortion for any other reason, the country is not there yet, and thus we should not be arguing on these grounds because the philosophical reasons that make this clear are not able to be encapsulated in a sound bite that politicians can quote.

Posted by ANNE on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 6:31 AM (EST):

“Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”: -
CCC: ” 2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a “criminal” practice, gravely contrary to the moral law.
The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life. “

Posted by ANNE on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 6:26 AM (EST):

“Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”: -
CCC: ” 2356 Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act.
Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them. “

Posted by Mark Taylor on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 5:37 AM (EST):

Next time my mother says women should be allowed to get an abortion in cases of rape, I’m going to tell her about Ethel Merman. Thanks for that Jimmy.

Posted by enness on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 11:55 PM (EST):

“Is society at large really going to be in a place within nine months to lovingly accept these children?”
As someone who volunteers for a crisis pregnancy center, it would be easier if we weren’t hated and targeted and bullied by the abortion industry trying to protect, promote, and perpetuate itself. We threaten to bring their whole house of cards crashing down. Don’t think everybody else is just neutral in this; the clinics have a major investment in making sure that 1) none of their clients knows about us, and if they should find out, 2) they are told lies about us.

Posted by enness on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 11:40 PM (EST):

I disagree, Jimmy. The difference between what Akin said and what Mourdock said is night and day, and I really do not believe most people are as stupid as they are acting. All the righteous indignation is a bunch of sound and fury.

Posted by Howard on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 7:52 PM (EST):

@Leo—“I think we all agree that: ... these women should not be sentenced for murder ....” Let me disabuse you of that thought. We do NOT all agree with that. So we should sentence murderers for murder ... unless they had a strong emotional desire to commit the murder? Well, what if the man committing the rape had a strong emotional desire to avenge himself (in his eyes) against a people that had committed atrocities against his family? Maybe he thought the rape was avenging the rape and murder of his mother and sister—if so would you presume to think that “we all agree that: raping the woman from the other side was immoral, these men should not be sentenced for rape, any proceedings they might face should be therapeutic”? I hope not, but I will not agree on your behalf, as you attempted to do on all of ours. EVERY sin and EVERY crime has some kind of temptation, some kind of rationalization. Not just the murder of 4-year old children by their mothers.

Posted by Robyn on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 7:51 PM (EST):

I think this is THE talking point that pro-life pols should make on this issue…

When a rape results in a pregnancy, there are TWO victims: the mother and the baby.

I think this debate needs people to shift their thinking and consider it a case where two victims’ rights and welfare must be balanced against each other. Certainly one should not have to surrender his or her life for the the sake of the other. Certainly a baby conceived in rape is a victim of that rape, because children have a right not to be conceived in violence and fear, with one parent attacking the other.

Posted by Msgr. Pope on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 7:31 PM (EST):

Well written!

Posted by Anonymous on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 6:39 PM (EST):

Surely we can agree that qualifying rape in any way and especially in the way Akin did is both a political mistake and a factual mistake. On any intuitive understanding of rape, if an action counts as rape, it is morally noxious. To qualify rape in any way is to imply that there are case of rape which are morally acceptable, which strikes me as immediately wrong. If an action is found to be a case of rape, it wrong—pure and simply. If an action is not wrong, it cannot on any interpretation be a case of rape.

The case of ambiguous consent proves my point. Ambiguous consent suggests that it is ambiguous whether the circumstance under consideration is a case of rape or a case of consentual sex.

Posted by Leo on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 4:25 PM (EST):

This is an example I have given, to help people to understand my ‘extreme pro-life’ position - especially when I am challenged as inconsistent.

In the Balkans war many women were raped by enemy soldiers. Some became pregnant but those who wanted an abortion were unable due to the disruption, even though abortion was legal. After the children were born, some of the women killed their post-born children, some of the children were as old as 4 or 5 years.

What those women did was illegal. Although I can barely begin to appreciate their terrible situation, I cannot support their ‘choice’ in killing their children - even in these exceptional and extreme circumstances.

I think we all agree that: killing the children was immoral, these women should not be sentenced for murder, any proceedings they might face should be therapeutic. Neither should the law should be changed to permit the killing of their children even in these exceptional circumstances. Killing the children was a violation of his/her right not to be killed, the children also became innocent victims of the rape.

If you agree me with me that killing her post-born child was immoral but consider post-rape abortion morally licit (as opposed to a pragmatic/expedient legal exception). Then the rational difference between us is our different assessment of the moral status of the pre-born and the post-born. I am happy to discuss that difference.

Posted by Karen on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 3:31 PM (EST):

I once worked at a center that provided counseling for sexual assault survivors. I was privileged to help run a support group for women who had survived rape. One was a lovely young woman, who was pregnant as a result of her assault. She intended to keep her child and raise it, with the help of her mother, who was also a member of our group. One of our clients was visibly bothered at this thought, and asked her, “How on earth could you even THINK of doing that?” And this lovely, brave woman thought and said, “Even though this is a horrible, horrible thing that happened to me, I’ve decided that this baby is God giving me something beautiful to help me heal. This baby is a gift.” I remember being so struck by that, by her courage, that it led me down the road to being truly pro-life and anti-abortion. At the time I was in college and had been taught by my parents that the Catholic Church was antiquated in its ideas regarding contraception and abortion. That woman’s bravery helped me realize that God is sovereign and knows our paths better than we can plan them.

Posted by Howard on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 3:14 PM (EST):

“And the devil led him into a high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time; And he said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them. If thou therefore wilt adore before me, all shall be thine.” How much is it worth to win an election?

Posted by florin on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 2:35 PM (EST):

Sorry Jimmy, I just realized that you yourself explained that Mourdock meant to say that God had intended the ‘conception’ not the rape…

Posted by Kathleen on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 2:34 PM (EST):

Howard,
You make a very good point about the difference between not being able to completely stop an act of violence like abortion, & actually protecting it by law(and financing with taxpayer’s funds)
I’m sorry that some politicians don’t go as far as the Church in protecting all life from conception to natural death, but we at least can elect folks who are willing to listen.Paul Ryan certainly holds those views but knows in the current political world to run on a platform of no exceptions would be a losing proposition.Sometimes you have to hold your cards a little closer. Or you end up like Ron Paul(whom I actually like, but no way can he win.)

Posted by MRD on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 2:33 PM (EST):

We should expect to see demagoguery regarding Mr. Murdock’s abortion and rape comments from the Democrats. Perhaps we might even entertain the idea that a skilled politician needs to be able to answer this question in a way that is slick and less honest. What however we should not argue with is that obviously Mr. Murdock is correct on the substance. It is traditional theology that God is omniscient and permits evil to allow good to come of it. While rape is evil the child so conceived is in themselves good, and in fact their existence is the will of God. ( as in fact is the existence of the rapist himself, right. Do we really entertain the idea that people who commit even grave sins do not continue to exist because God maintains them in being? There are individuals who were conceived via rape, the Grammy award winning Singer Ethel Waters is one such individual as was the abolitionist Fredrick Douglass, not to mention Fox news reporter Kelly Wright and pro-life activist Rebecca Keisling. Are these people wrong to view their existence as somehow against the will of God? Is their life not a good thing? As Christians have we so forgotten basic theology that we are no longer aware that in some sense the evil of the rape can result in the good of a human being. Even if it is a suffering to bear the child, the child in him or herself is a positive good. Granted it is perhaps too much truth for politician to argue this to a world that is increasingly abandoning its Christian roots, but we should not forget it. Murdock’s folly was that he said the truth. He did not say that the rape was good, but that God can bring good out of evil, and the child conceived in rape has intrinsic value that the circumstances of his/ her conception does not negate. Indeed once one concedes that hard case exceptions like rape, the pro-life case melts away. It is indeed a hardship to bear a child of a rapist, but is it not also a hardship to bear a child when poor, or young, or if the child has a birth defect, or ... and on and on. Once we concede well.. ok its fine to kill the unborn child for a really good reason like ” rape” who is to say other “really good reasons” do not cross the threshold? What seems clear is that it is never permissible to directly kill an innocent human being to achieve a goal, even a good goal. The same principle that prohibits abortion in rape prohibits killing civilians in war so as to end a war quicker,or experimenting on prisoners to cure disease. The ends do not justify the means. That is the real reason abortion in rape is wrong. Would that argument have been any less susceptible to Democrat demagoguery? The real scandal here is that Catholics have so abandoned the Church’s teaching that most are pro-choice or at least fine with electing pro-choice legislators. This inspite of the fact that the Church teach’s abortion is an unspeakable crime.

Posted by florin on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 2:32 PM (EST):

I think Mourdock meant to say that God intended the ‘conception’ - not the rape but perhaps I misunderstood.

Posted by yan on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 2:01 PM (EST):

Jimmy, I want to agree with what you have written here. However, I think that both what Akin and Murdock said, if interpreted charitably, was perfectly reasonable [except for what Akin said about the woman being able to shut down conception in the case of forcible rape. I just plead ignorance there. He may be right, for all I know.] The real problem is that those opposed to them will interpret them uncharitably.

No matter how one nuances responses about life, even if they follow J Akin’s recommendations flawlessly and to the letter in every case, and they are never tired or overtaxed at the time a question is asked of them, this lack of charity is not going to change. If the comments are not taken out of context, then editorialists will fill in the blanks of what was left unsaid in an uncharitable manner. This has been seen to happen time and again.

Posted by Howard on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 1:59 PM (EST):

@Rob B. and Kathleen—There are two issues associated with abortion. The first is the abortion itself. We can hope to dramatically reduce the number of abortions, but as with other crimes, some people will always abuse their free will and commit crimes such as this, no matter the penalty. It is reasonable to make compromises to most effectively limit the number of abortions. The second issue is our corporate, formal cooperation with the evil of abortion. This is not a matter of simply doing too little to reduce abortions, it is enshrining abortion as a right protected by law. Compromises that leave us as a nation PROTECTING access to ANY abortions means that we are still formally cooperating with murder. So a Republican candidate who says that the “standard exceptions” may be grudgingly left in place as a compromise which is necessary for now, but not ideal, may still be worthy of respect, but NOT one how says that these exceptions should not EVEN IN PRINCIPLE be removed. Unfortunately, most Republicans seem to fall into that second camp.

Posted by Kerry on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 1:37 PM (EST):

Jimmy,

Even with these few corrections of yours to explain away these politicians mistakes, rape and abortion are very sticky topics that need to be handled with care and “concern” when addressing in a written or verbal statement.
Unfortunately, I think you have overreached (trying hard to be a good apologist is commendable) by assumming that these comments that the two politicians made were meant to mean something else. Perhaps I am one of the few that figure these two politicians are educated and experienced by age well enough to know what they are talking about when they start speaking, but this is my opinion. To have others step up and start wordsmithing for them is a bit over the top…and politically this happens too often for all sides. May God bless us all even though we have so many corrupted, unfaithful, or even uneducated politicians!

Posted by Bill on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 1:11 PM (EST):

I think it’s a chicken or egg thing. On one hand, the parties drive the narrative. On the other, they are reactive to cultural views. Right now we are in a period where wealthy and socially liberal celebrities are venerated and traditionalism is shunned. So that’s why we are in the morass we are in.

Posted by Bill on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 1:04 PM (EST):

The biggest reason that nothing changes on the life and morals issues is that the prime mover for the GOP is economic conservatism. The other legs of the three legged stool, strong defense, and especially social conservatism take a back seat.

The problem is for the left, the prime mover for THEM is social liberalism. Economic liberalism (the old looking out for the blue collar union little guy) and dovishness take a back seat. That’s why you see crony capitalism and endless wars in the Obama administration.

The GOP is still beholden to the country club, but the Dems have rejected the average Joe.

Posted by Ann on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 12:57 PM (EST):

In college (1950’s) some of us took a mini-course in marriage. The OB-GYN giving the course was very competent, well-known locally. He stated that rape is usually such a violent assault on a woman that even if she were going into ovlutation, her body would probably stop the process and not allow her to become pregnant. I have never thought about statistical studies on such a phenomenon and if any are available, I’d be interested in seeing them. I don’t think any pro life politician has a prayer these days with the mainstream media full of anti-life pundits. Just heard a woman commentator on CNN say women are becoming Talibanized by believers trying to do away with abortion. Huh? Do you have to have a low IQ to be hired by TV networks? As for abortion done to save the life of the mother, that too is problematic, unless a woman is diagnosed with cancer in her uterus and it must be removed. Most doctors will tell you that when there is a major health risk, they work to save the life of the mother AND the child. St. Gianna Molla, pray for us.

Posted by Rob B. on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 11:52 AM (EST):

@Susanne—It isn’t horrendous. The problem is that it is a nuanced answer to a complicated question, something that doesn’t sit well with our culture of soundbites and our ADD electorate.

Posted by Kathleen on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 11:51 AM (EST):

Rob B.,
Very true about some of the GOP politicians & followers-I’ve met a few, but there are very good & decent folk there, too.

Posted by Susanne on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 11:47 AM (EST):

Murdock didn’t say that God intended the rape. He said that maybe he intended that the life would be the result of it. Why is that so horrendous?

Posted by Rob B. on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 11:37 AM (EST):

@Kathleen—I agree. I’m just sick of the GOP claiming to be the “party of life” when it really doesn’t give a crap about the issue.

Posted by Kathleen on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 11:25 AM (EST):

Rob B,
Granted, some supposedly conservative Supreme Court justices have been a dissapointment, but imagine a Supreme Court handpicked by people like Obama? That’s who will ultimately be making decisions for our nation.Abortion’s already here, euthanasia’s knocking at our door.
I’d vote as an independent if it made the right difference, but for now the GOP’s our best shot.

Posted by Rob B. on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 11:11 AM (EST):

@Kathleen—Sorry, but I don’t see much “chipping away at evil” even when we have had Republican control of the government. Every election year we’re promised that Roe v. Wade is on the verge of being overturned so long as we elect Bush or McCain or Romney or whoever. Eventually, such claptrap becomes a boy crying wolf.
.
The GOP’s “pro-life” position is a good way for them to get religious voters to stay in the tent as “useful idiots.” Not even Romney himself supports the Republican pro-life plank as written (the plank provides no exceptions). Where will life issues be come December? I doubt they will be at the forefront of a potential Romney administration. Heck, I even doubt he’ll dismantle Obamacare.
.
In the end, Catholic voters have a choice between the party of Moloch and the party of Mammon. I’m voting for Romney (the first Republican I’ve ever voted for), but I’m not expecting much movement against Planned Parenthood.

Posted by bee on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 11:08 AM (EST):

David, I can concede that eliminating persay seems untenable. Reducing then. Making it rare. Which feminists are you speaking of who do these presentations? The college material FFL provides is different, and not about rape. FFL are not your mainstream feminists. Given that most (but not all, i know, but still most) rapists are male, it seems logical that freshmen men should be made aware that this does happen. The statistic of 1 in 4 women being raped wasn’t just pulled out of a hat. YES most men value women and would never ever harm them in such a way. HOWEVER, it is conceivable that (particularly at colleges), there may be a lack of awareness of how date rape (no consent) is a crime, as is going at a woman severely drunk. Perhaps the assemblies should focus more on instilling mental strength that don’t lead to slipper slopes of judgment. And perhaps my use of the word “culture” is problematic. No there is not a “culture” where rape is okay. What we as a society need to work on is transforming hearts and minds so BROKEN from so many reasons so that rape is the last thought a person has when he sees a woman jogging (there was summer full of them here in Boston), when she takes advantage of the severely inebriated guy, or because a grown adult has a perversion (also included in 1 in 4 are those raped as minors).

Posted by David on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 10:54 AM (EST):

“Rape is a horrible crime, and during my tenure in office I will help create a culture that eliminates this abominable offense against women.”
.
I can understand why the women posting here are in support of Bee’s comment, but I think a claim to eliminate rape is like the War on Terror or the War on Drugs. Reducing rape, terror, and drug use are all laudable goals, but eliminating them is ultimately impossible. Moreover, if we really become serious about the goal of eliminating rape or any other crime, we are going to commit crimes of our own in the process.
.
As a man I also wonder how exactly Feminists for Life would like to create the culture Bee describes. I’m not at all fond of the methods feminists are already using. For instance, making every male college freshman sit through a presentation during orientation that explains that rape is wrong. Why? Because they’re male? I also read a story not long ago in which college men were coerced into dressing like women (high heels included) in a public demonstration against rape. Usually efforts to eliminate the so-called rape culture (I’m not convinced it actually exists) amount to little more than excuses to continue the project of demeaning, undermining, and humiliating men that feminism has already started.

Posted by Melissa on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 10:37 AM (EST):

I think it is fairly safe to say that, if the majority of abortions performed were the hard cases (rape, incest, and when the mom’s life is in danger) abortion would not be such a dividing issue. (I’m Canadian, so maybe there are cultural differences here that I’m unaware of). Even in countries where abortion is illegal, (a friend of mine is a graduate student on exchange from Tanzania) if a doctor acts in good faith and performs an abortion in one of the hard cases, although people may disagree personally, there is no public outcry, and the doctor isn’t prosecuted (unless he kills or maims the woman, but that is another story). Andrea Mrozek of ProWomanProLife has a really good take on it: she says we ought to do what we can to change the culture (and law, if that’swhat it takes) so that abortion is rare enough that the hard cases make up the majority of abortions; THEN we decide, as a culture, what to do with the hard cases.

But honestly, if abortion were truly, truly rare, I wouldn’t give a damn whether it were safe and legal.

Posted by Kathleen on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 10:36 AM (EST):

bee,
Amen.

Posted by bee on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 10:32 AM (EST):

Thank you, Rosa and Linda. I am well aware of Feminists for Life and am so glad for their mission and wish they had more attention. I would urge politicians to learn more about them when crafting responses to trigger questions and when creating legislation.

Posted by Linda on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 10:26 AM (EST):

Bee, I’m so in agreement with you. Pro-life positions need to include the mother, as well as the unborn child. A woman is raped, and faces the prospect of carrying a lifelong reminder of the worst experience of her life. She needs all the help that the society can give her. Or some high school kid has a couple of drinks at a party, and has a bad lapse in judgement. Now she is pregnant, frightened, and feels so very alone. I am pro-life, but I agree with Bee that until we reach out to make these mothers feel safe and loved and cared for, abortion will always look like a good solution.

Posted by Rosa on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 10:22 AM (EST):

Well said bee. I think all Christian pro-lifers should take a look at Feminists for Life for how they put together their arguments. Their mission is to create a such a culture. And that’s also the main message by JPII in Evangelium Vitae.

Posted by Kathleen on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 10:18 AM (EST):

Posted by Rob B. on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 10:08 AM (EST):The “rape and incest” exception is why the GOP has zero credibility on pro-life issues. The Democratic position is morally repugnant, but at least it is logically consistent…”
**************
Rob,
The GOP has MUCH credibilty on prolife issues, not zero.Any chipping away at an evil is a better outcome than that evil increasing in numbers.Not to mention being taxpayer funded.

Posted by Nathaniel Campbell on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 10:10 AM (EST):

“Although some pro-life leaders have asserted that this is true, others have challenged the claim.”

And you fail to appreciate just how problematic this third “huge problem” is. There is NO scientific basis for this claim. That needs to be said, loudly, clearly, and repeated, again and again and again.

Otherwise, somebody will read your statement and think, “There’s some evidence either way and it’s a matter of opinion.” It is NOT a matter of opinion: it is a matter of scientific fact that rape can lead to pregnancy. Period.

(Why is this so hard? Why is it so hard for pro-lifers to get medical facts straight? It boggles the mind.)

Posted by David on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 10:09 AM (EST):

I didn’t see anything wrong with Mr. Mourdock’s remark. The Left is dishonest and fond of using scare tactics to silence the opposition, and I believe that is all they’re doing here: being dishonest and trying to scare the Right into submission. We can keep working hard to phrase our position in ways that the Left can’t use against us, but I think that is a losing battle and, by the way, almost a tacit admission of guilt. The other option is to call them out on their mischief and hold the line. All we are doing is giving into their manipulation and distortions. We shouldn’t play into their game like this.

Posted by Rob B. on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 10:08 AM (EST):

The “rape and incest” exception is why the GOP has zero credibility on pro-life issues. The Democratic position is morally repugnant, but at least it is logically consistent…

Posted by bee on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 10:05 AM (EST):

You know, I am glad that someone else is frustrated with the stupid things these 65ish year old men are saying. I agree that if the “what about rape?” trap comes up, the first things out of politicians’ mouths should be 1. But my issue is that #2 does not adequately address the pastoral needs of the woman, which is what infuriates people. No, a child should not be punished because half its DNA came from the incidents of an assault. (“father’ is too nice and homey a word to use for a man who deliberately violated a woman’s dignity in such a way). BUT we should not ignore the psychological and physical difficulties that arise from becoming pregnant in a way a woman never ever desires. I think secular society’s main problem with our focus on first trying to illegalize abortion is that we don’t have concrete answers as to what happens to all the children that are being carried and born when their mothers didn’t want them. Is society at large really going to be in a place within nine months to lovingly accept these children? Is widespread support (maybe psychological, financial, protective) for the women going to be in place from the get go? Are adoption laws going to have changed to make it seem less daunting? Rather, I’d like to see a response that is something like: “Rape is a horrible crime, and during my tenure in office I will help create a culture that eliminates this abominable offense against women. And if it happens and a new life is created, I will support policies that will demonstrate care for both woman and baby.” And then actually have proposals as to how this will all work out.

Posted by Mr. Patton on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 9:59 AM (EST):

“Mourdock’s first huge problem is that most people won’t sit back and read his claim carefully.
Unless you’re a pro-lifer who is taking a careful, cautious, and consciously fair-minded approach to things, you’re likely to hear him as saying that God intended the rape.”

No Jimmy it is as you stated here…

“This allows the enemies of life to dismiss pro-lifers (including Akin) as scientific illiterates who are so driven by ideology that they make preposterous claims repudiated by others of their own camp.”

Posted by Randy on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 9:45 AM (EST):

To what extent is this a media invention. Akin made a stupid statement. He deserves to pay a price for that regardless of his position on abortion. The media run to the idea that all pro-life people are stupid. Bo, one guy was stupid on one question. He might still know a lot about tax. I don’t know.

Mourdock really should not be talked about in the same breath as Akin. They are very, very different cases. For starters one made a true statement and one made a false statement. Mourdock was simply making a theological distinction that the press could not follow. You need to treat the press like idiots at all times but especially when talking about religion. If he is going to make the point that good results can flow from evil acts he needs to take a minute or two and make that point well.

Posted by Lori on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 9:42 AM (EST):

“Ambiguous about consent?” seems to imply that it’s somehow the women’s fault, I wouldn’t suggest that line to anyone. It’s insulting. Rape is rape: good, bad or legitimate. I’m tired of men speaking with “authority” on this issue, because it somehow always seems to come back to blaming the woman for having been raped in the first place.

Posted by Kathleen on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 9:02 AM (EST):

Thanks.I’ve used Ethel Waters in discussions on this topic,too.You’d also have to consider the huge numbers of children conceived by rape in war times & current global conflicts.And it’s a pretty good bet that most of us are the result of some act of non-consensual sex if we went back far enough in time, and more recently for folks of color whose ancestors were enslaved.
Maybe male politicians should just stay away from talking about rape, period.No matter what they say or how well intended, if they’re prolife, their words will be twisted & purposely misconstrued for political gain.
If it has to be up for discussion during an election year, maybe leave it to prolife women.Or just leave it alone.

I think you want to say that RAPE is a horrible crime, not abortion. Although… abortion is a horrible crime too.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.

About Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant pastor or seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith. Eventually, he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is a Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to This Rock magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."